007 Movie Tournament Game Match 11

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

I actually don't think Connery would have fit in OHMSS at all. He's too much testosterone. Too much machismo. I can't see Connery's Bond actually falling in love and being heartbroken. I could see Dalton doing that, easily. In fact I believe he auditioned for the role in OHMSS, but even Dalton agreed he was too young at that point. I think Lazenby fits the film extremely well and pulls it off nicely. It's also somewhat appropriate that for the one film where Bond is more emotionally vulnerable and gets married, it's a different actor who only starred in one film.

I completely agree about Connery, and that's been an assertion I've made a lot over the years. Connery's skillset as an actor doesn't extend well to scenes with heartfelt emotion. I've seen him attempt it in other films and it comes across as forced (the Presidio being one that I recall). What I enjoy about OHMSS is that many of its elements are offbeat compared to the rest of the series and having the obscure Lazenby in a one-off performance adds to that mystique.

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

Agree that Dalton would have been ideal for OHMSS were it not for his age.

I don't think Dalton would have worked even if he was the right age. For the same reason I don't think Connery would have worked.

[EvaDK]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I completely agree about Connery, and that's been an assertion I've made a lot over the years. Connery's skillset as an actor doesn't extend well to scenes with heartfelt emotion.

Really?

The Name Of The Rose
Robin & Marian
The Untouchables
The Russia House
Highlander?

I think Connery is perfectly capable of showing his softer side, his insecurities and deep felt melancholia.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by EvaDK

Really?

The Name Of The Rose
Robin & Marian
The Untouchables
The Russia House
Highlander?

I think Connery is perfectly capable of showing his softer side, his insecurities and deep felt melancholia.

Yes, really. The only film on that list that comes somewhat close is Robin and Marian and he still doesn't quite pull it off. What is there in The Untouchables that would come even close? And I'm assuming your inclusion of Highlander has some connection to today's date?

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Yes, really. The only film on that list that comes somewhat close is Robin and Marian and he still doesn't quite pull it off. What is there in The Untouchables that would come even close? And I'm assuming your inclusion of Highlander has some connection to today's date?

Connery is my all time favorite actor... and I agree with you.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

Connery is my all time favorite actor... and I agree with you.

Don't get me wrong. He's one of my favourites too and I'm not saying he can't display any range of emotion, it's just that when it comes to the sort of sweet, romantic, heartfelt type of emotion that would be required for him to truly feel like he would give up everything for a woman, then be utterly stunned and heartbroken at her death, I just cannot see him pulling it off.

That's not to say that Lazenby is any great sort of actor that he does truly pull it off, but he doesn't have the larger than life persona that Connery has which works to his advantage in those scenes.

[EvaDK]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Yes, really. The only film on that list that comes somewhat close is Robin and Marian and he still doesn't quite pull it off. What is there in The Untouchables that would come even close? And I'm assuming your inclusion of Highlander has some connection to today's date?

Connery embodied the resigned mentor in both The Untouchables and Highlander. Ramirez (Highlander), after having endured the loss of three wives, no longer sought the reward for himself, nor did he have much to live for, apart from his stated goal of denying his arch-nemesis the Kurgan the reward. Hence, he mentors Conner for that objective. I thought both performances were very bittersweet behind the alpha male surface.

The Russia House is a love story within an espionage drama, Connery and Pfeiffer have great chemistry in it.

I'm surprised you ignore The Name Of The Rose, imo the best performance of his career. William of Baskerville, the detective who discovers that he can no longer stay silent when witnessing brutal injustice and a blind church that tolerates murder to protect the true faith. His performance is sublime and a far cry from his Bond years.

I would have loved to see Connery tackle OHMSS, although that in itself wouldn't fix all its problems.

But I guess, different people, different tastes. Hey, tomorrow there's another vote.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by EvaDK

I'm surprised you ignore The Name Of The Rose, imo the best performance of his career. William of Baskerville, the detective who discovers that he can no longer stay silent when witnessing brutal injustice and a blind church that tolerates murder to protect the true faith. His performance is sublime and a far cry from his Bond years.

You keep thinking that somehow my comments equate to saying that Connery doesn't know how to act or show any sort of emotion. This is completely inaccurate. What I have said, and clearly reiterated in a later post, is that he has never been able to demonstrate the type of emotion required specifically for the scenes that would require it in OHMSS.

In The Name of the Rose, Connery plays a monk and the only female character is the one who has a relationship with Christian Slater's character, so how in any way, shape, or form would he be able to demonstrate the type of emotion in that film that would equate to what would be required for OHMSS?

[EvaDK]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

In The Name of the Rose, Connery plays a monk and the only female character is the one who has a relationship with Christian Slater's character, so how in any way, shape, or form would he be able to demonstrate the type of emotion in that film that would equate to what would be required for OHMSS?

The object of your feelings and love doesn't have to be a woman. You wrote that Connery wasn't convincing with conveying 'heartfelt emotion'; this I disagree with. He has many tender scenes in this film, in particular with Christian Slater, to whom he must often explain such concepts as God, love, justice and faith in an intimate setting. Intimate as in private; not erotic.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by EvaDK

The object of your feelings and love doesn't have to be a woman. You wrote that Connery wasn't convincing with conveying 'heartfelt emotion'; this I disagree with. He has many tender scenes in this film, in particular with Christian Slater, to whom he must often explain such concepts as God, love, justice and faith in an intimate setting. Intimate as in private; not erotic.

I need to watch that movie again...

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by EvaDK

The object of your feelings and love doesn't have to be a woman. You wrote that Connery wasn't convincing with conveying 'heartfelt emotion'; this I disagree with. He has many tender scenes in this film, in particular with Christian Slater, to whom he must often explain such concepts as God, love, justice and faith in an intimate setting. Intimate as in private; not erotic.

Lord love a duck!

Think about the specific scenes in OHMSS we are talking about. Think about the type of emotions required to pull them off convincingly. Use that as a context clue to figure out what we are talking about when we say “heartfelt emotion.” A hint: it has nothing to do with his ability to portray a f*cking mentor to another male character.